Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 323 posts

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#121

Post by jasonfarnon »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #106
jasonfarnon wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But Texas trying to remove the ability of (for instance) Europeans to access websites is a completely different matter." I fail to see the difference in principle from the federal government doing this for copyright violations.

There is no difference in principle. That is equally unacceptable. There is a difference in kind, because it becomes impossible for the global internet to exist if thousands of local jurisdictions are being given their way, with conflicting local legislation resulting in global takedown when it is impossible to comply with two different jurisdictions. So this is noteworthy as an escalation of an already existing prob…

Which is why the Internet hasn't been global in a long time, and looks pretty different in China vs EU vs Russia.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#122

Post by walrus01 »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #14
pixl97 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like.

Indeed. Does this mean Texas can shutdown other websites in other states that provide abortion support? I’m sure there are those who would argue such to be harmful to children…(not to mention the fetus)

They're already actively trying to prosecute people who mail medication across state lines.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#123

Post by mjmas »

jmclnx wrote: post #68

Well the site does not present Texas in a good light. Their .gov site presents me with this. Looks like they need to worry about their own site instead of worrying about out of state sites. >Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead > Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to www.texasattorneygeneral.gov. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, ema…

Perhaps you could take it up with your ISP or whoever is doing mitm?

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#124

Post by kibwen »

gnabgib wrote: post #75
antonvs wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas.

> Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas. You know real, friendly, generous humans live in Texas, right?

The friendly, generous humans who resoundingly endorse the corrupt Ken Paxton's actions and will overwhelmingly vote for him to serve them in the senate this year? Actions speak louder than words. With friends like Texans, who needs enemies?

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#125

Post by jasonfarnon »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #120
jasonfarnon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're going to have give us the "explicit" quotation, because that link is to a decision in favor of the state.

> You're going to have give us To be fair, only some of "us" are unwilling to read a two-page document to be informed about a topic under discussion. The words you're looking for are "Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation."

Nice try, that's not the same as not doing business in the state. Most businesses are incorporated in Delaware, they get sued in every state of the union.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#126

Post by sitharus »

bmelton wrote: post #90
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet. You're free to not serve your site in the EU. Texas is free to block sites in Texas. But Texas trying to remove the ability of Europeans to access European websites is a completely different matter.

> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet > You're free to not serve your site in the EU Geoblocking is functionally impossible

GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal _of your personal data_ from the internet _upon your request_, which is very different from a US state trying to remove a website hosted in and run by a company incorporated in another country.

And geo blocking may be functionally impossible but the law cares about intent and actions, not if you prevented someone who used a VPN or lied about their location from using your service.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#127

Post by walrus01 »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #121
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference in principle. That is equally unacceptable. There is a difference in kind, because it becomes impossible for the global internet to exist if thousands of local jurisdictions are being given their way, with conflicting local legislation resulting in global takedown when it is impossible to comply with two different jurisdictions. So this is noteworthy as an escalation of an already existing prob…

Which is why the Internet hasn't been global in a long time, and looks pretty different in China vs EU vs Russia.

The major architectural difference is that through enforcement of their own domestic legislation, China and Russia both force their ISPs to run all international internet traffic through certain choke points (chinese great firewall, russian "SORM" traffic interception boxes and similar).

Whereas this is for the most part not the scenario for major IP transit providers in Europe, the USA, Canada (top 50 by size CAIDA ASRank scale/scope ISPs ranked by ASN which are not Russian or chinese).

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#128

Post by AdieuToLogic »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #104
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course it has business operations in TX. It does not, as explicitly stated in the court's decision found here[0]. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima...

You're going to have give us the "explicit" quotation, because that link is to a decision in favor of the state.

Two quotes from the writ filed support my position.

  The court finds that the following domain name is
  owned by Defendant ...

  Defendant is not a resident of this state and is
  a foreign corporation.
> You're going to have give us the "explicit" quotation ...

The aforementioned does so. Until and unless you can show how the Defendant has an established presence within the State of Texas, such that its jurisdiction is applicable, it is difficult for me to consider your position considered and/or informed.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#129

Post by inigyou »

bmelton wrote: post #90
applfanboysbgon wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet. You're free to not serve your site in the EU. Texas is free to block sites in Texas. But Texas trying to remove the ability of Europeans to access European websites is a completely different matter.

> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet > You're free to not serve your site in the EU Geoblocking is functionally impossible

HN ignores GDPR, in particular Article 17, and it hasn't been taken down from the internet or even blocked in the EU.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#130

Post by akerl_ »

applfanboysbgon wrote: post #94
bmelton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet > You're free to not serve your site in the EU Geoblocking is functionally impossible

> GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet ...as part of compliance with GDPR, if you choose to be compliant. Please name one instance of the EU suing and successfully removing an American website from the internet under this article, or any part of the GDPR? Considering we're talking about an actual case of the US seizing the domain of a European website, whataboutting a hypo…

Are you saying that you don’t think that the GDPR text is written to apply outside of the EU, or that it does say that but it’s not relevant because it’s not viable for anybody to enforce that?
Post reply on HN